Quietly? The point is he signed a lot of bills on Thursday and some more on Friday, then announced them all at once on Friday. A Friday bill dump. Presumably, he's more interested in avoiding criticism than getting credit. Of course, he's getting plenty of criticism from Democrats anyway, both for the substance of the laws and for the low-key signings. But let's concentrate on the substance:

[One] bill requires a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a physical exam and consult with a doctor alone, away from her friends and family. The doctor must determine whether someone is pressuring the woman into the procedure....

But opponents argue webcam consultations aren't currently done in Wisconsin and Republicans simply want to make it more difficult to get an abortion....

That last sentence troubles me. How can you portray it as a burden — making it more difficult — if what is now forbidden was not even being done?

Do opponents also believe there is currently no problem of women getting pressured to have abortions? If that were happening, you wouldn't complain that abortions were more difficult to obtain. You'd want to slow things down at that point to protect the woman's right to choose. No mainstream political voices argue in favor or more abortions, only stronger abortion rights, freer access to abortion, if that is the woman's choice.

That last sentence needs rewriting, but it's hard to figure out how. It could say:

But opponents argue that women aren't coerced into abortions, and Republicans simply want to make it more difficult to get an abortion.

That would make sense as an argument, but I don't know if it's factually true. Opponents might feel squeamish about making an assertion like that, and it may conflict with other things they'd like to be able to say about the subordination of women.

Abortion politics. I'm not defending either side here. Everyone's gesturing at political constituencies. It's a nasty business in a delicate place, where there are many conflicting values, and a tremendous amount of dishonesty all around.

82 comments:

As I understand it, this law does not merely "stress" abstinence in a comprehensive Sex Ed course. It states that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing pregnancy and prohibits teaching of other methods.

And clearly, not wanting anyone to be coerced into having an abortion she doesn't want, not by a boyfriend who doesn't want to pay for a child nor by her mother who doesn't want to be shamed in the community, that is a "war on women."

The law requires schools that offer a human development and growth curriculum to emphasize abstinence as the preferred method of birth control and emphasize the role and “socioeconomic benefits” of marriage, neglecting science-based teaching.

"As I understand it, this law does not merely "stress" abstinence in a comprehensive Sex Ed course. It states that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing pregnancy and prohibits teaching of other methods. Am I mistaken ?"

The article says that a requirement has been removed, so that it is now permitted to teach abstinence only, if that's what is preferred at the local level.

I haven't read the text of the bill, just the article, but it's not saying abstinence-only is required. I think previously it was banned.

leslyn said...The law requires schools that offer a human development and growth curriculum to emphasize abstinence as the preferred method of birth control and emphasize the role and “socioeconomic benefits” of marriage, neglecting science-based teaching.

Pray tell, what's unscientific about "emphasiz[ing] abstinence as the preferred method of birth control and emphasize the role and 'socioeconomic benefits' of marriage".

The bill would "Require schools that teach sex education to promote marriage and tell students that abstinence is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The measure also allows public schools to teach abstinence-only courses, which had been barred since 2010 under a law Democrats approved when they controlled state government."

So it seems that marriage and abstinence must be taught about, and the ban on abstinence only teaching, imposed by Democrats in 2010, has now been repealed.

This is what garage was trying to pull last night, that this was some secret dark-of-night thing.

Bet the Demos didn't object when Sibelius went all kissy-face with Tiller.

(in fact, they didn't)

As to abortion, ultrasound has really put the kibosh on it. Once women see that's a real person in there, the whole "fetus" thing goes out the window.

That's why the number of abortions is down and the number of abortion mills is really down.

This is an issue for the feminazis more than anyone else.

rhhardin said...

Social conservatives is why Obama might get reelected.

I know the Libertarians love to trot out that line, but it's the economy that's killing Dictator Zero and the Romster gets that.

The Gallup poll that the Lefties love to quote (y'know, the one that asked registered voters, 41% of which were Demo and 21% of which were Republican) asked women to rate their concerns and the top 5 were all economic or financial.

I guess Allie is the designated "War on Women:" flack for this piece of digital real estate for the time being. Yesterday, Allie, you made some pronouncements on 'women's rights." I am always confused about that because it has seemed to me that the rights of women and men are the same. Neither is nor should be granted any greater rights.

We have made an exception in this country where pregnancy is concerned. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she does not want to have the baby. This flows, according to our law, from the essential biological nature of women. They carry and give birth to the babies.

This has brought us to the abortion debate, which is vast and wide ranging and has deep moral and religious implications. While proponents of abortion sometimes case laws that affect the procedures for obtaining abortion as part of a war on women, the fact is that the proponents of these laws include women and men. Similarly many of the opponents of abortion are women. So if there is a war on women it is a civil war to a important extent.

So my question, Allie, is this: Apart from the issue of abortion, on which there is so much fundamental disagreement that flows from first moral principles on both sides, in what areas are women entitled to any special rights? If society does not afford women special rights other than the right to abort an unborn child at will, should we?

Do you discount completely the notion that others could see, in the abortion law we now embrace, a war on unborn children? A war particularly directed at unborn black children? These points have been made consistently by persons who seem to me to have a rational basis for their views? Are they simply warring on women too?

Please do not fall back on the discrimination that women sometimes encounter. Of course they do, as do many other persons in society. All kinds of people have to overcome a prejudice of one kind or another. Women do too, but in many ways women get significant benefits from being female. As a husband and father of five daughters and stepdaughters I am well aware of the disadvantages and advantages of being female. There are also pluses and minuses to being male.

Just what is this war on women? Since you bring it up so often, would you please seriously define it?

An increase in freedom is always better than more regulation. It is right and good for local school boards to have the authority to make decisions for their own schools. Teachers in their own classrooms should have more direct control over how and what they teach as well. The result is something far less uniform, but also far more flexible and adaptive.

I don't understand the fear that some little school district somewhere might possibly decide that they will teach abstinence only in their sex ed courses. Firstly, it's unlikely. But even if they do it would be the will of the people in that district. Why does respect for democratic principles go out the window so quickly when it involves other people's children?

There is not a War on women for being female like Liar Obama suggests. But there is a war on child bearing women to see who controls of their wombs.

Since 1918 a world changing force of human procreation was freed from disease and famine by cheap energy sources, engineers and medical scientists. That is now attracting intense regulation.

Without abortion and contraception made mandatory (as in China,) a flood of new humans who will arrive on the Earth.

That hoard could then come to the aid their parents and fight for them and their country. Sounds to me and Walker like an easy choice for Americans to make. It was until Obama took over and re-set our goals to be management of our surrender. The Obama Death Panels now being built into life by Secretary's of EPA , HSA and HHS will allow a few survivors as possible.

IMO the foundational political question is whether the State can re-enact old Neo-Pagan Roman Empire culture in this procreation area, or whether the Roman Catholic Church, joined by the Protestants, can once again defeat those powers.

It seems the Republicans want to extend their control into the relationships between doctors and patients and anywhere else they can, which strikes me a strange for those who advocate for less government etc. Women are coerced in many ways, including to have children, but generally these are private decisions to be discussed and acted upon by the parties involved.

"She will have to reconcile the choice she made in aborting her own child at some point in her life or in the herafter."

Its fine and good to damn a woman for her own choices. But you completely ignored what I asked.

What about damning her because she got bullied by her boyfriend or her mother? Because it's one thing to say that it doesn't fall on her in that case, and another to figure that she won't feel that it does.

Is having gone from the bad old days where pregnant girls were sent away, forced to give up babies, and then returned home from those "visits" to obscure relatives to live a life where everyone knows what happened but everyone lies... to the new days where it's not an obscure relative or home for unwed mothers, but a clinic where the social embarrassment and expense is disposed of and the social lies are easier to maintain... is that really not a problem that matters?

It certainly ought to if the "rule" is that women make their own choices.

Also it's blazingly obvious that to the Evangelical wing of the GOP abortion remains their #1 issue, despite the economic meltdown. You see these Christians are obsessed with "eternity" and you can't be worrying about filthy lucre when your very soul is at stake. Unfortunately these nutburgers represent 40% of the GOP.

How many cases of a woman or girl being coerced to have an abortion do you think there are compared to the number of women who have one willingly? This is not a real issue on a large scale, it's a way to humiliate and make it more difficult to engage in a right that a Federal law has given a woman.

How about all the bellyaching gun enthusiasts do? And this is about guns for pity sake, not humans.

Yes the baby is human, but not viable to live outside of the womb of the mother until a certain stage in development. Does a non viable human's rights trump those of a human adult woman?

How can you portray it as a burden — making it more difficult — if what is now forbidden was not even being done?

Why even make it a law then?

There are far far too many laws on the books. Adding laws for things that don't happen is proof that this Legislature has far too much time on its hands. Thank goodness all the fiscal problems here are solved.

But by all means Republicans. Veer way off to the right in social conservative land. Make the coming elections more difficult.

"How many cases of a woman or girl being coerced to have an abortion do you think there are compared to the number of women who have one willingly?"

How many would it have to be before it mattered?

In any case, I think it's probably quite a few, particularly in the case of teenagers. All I know is anecdotal, but I don't think it's insignificant. Mostly it's second hand, too, but I don't doubt it when someone says they know a woman bullied by a boyfriend or dropped off at the clinic by a furious husband.

When I was in college I worked with a 17 year old who told me that she'd been pregnant and hadn't "shown" or told her parents until after she'd felt the baby move. Her wealthy and socially conscious parents (her description, not mine) bullied her into an abortion. They actually drove her over state lines to find a doctor who would give her an illegal late term abortion. It obviously bothered her, or why tell me about it? But she was mostly ambivalent, or trying to be. And all I could think was... what is going to happen when she's older and has a baby her parents approve of, and she feels that baby move in her womb?

But I suppose this never happens?

I think it probably happens quite often and the people concerned about it happening are HONESTLY concerned about it happening and are not lying about that in a cynical attempt to block abortion.

If a woman *has* made up her own mind, being asked to state her decision to a doctor without a chorus of emotional supporters standing around her is not a hardship.

Logically, the entire purpose of the chorus of emotional supporters is that her own resolve isn't sufficient. So what is the problem? Someone with a weak inclination and no resolve might decide that she'd rather not have an abortion if she's asked to voice her own decision with her own voice?

I'm sorry. I don't think that there needs to be very many coerced women at all before stopping that coercion is more important than making a weak willed ninnyhammer more comfortable with her decision to abort.

"Adding laws for things that don't happen is proof that this Legislature has far too much time on its hands."

The last thing that pro-abortion advocates would ever do is actually bother to find out if it happens or not.

It would cause problems to the narrative.

Somehow the idea that parents might coerce young women *out* of having an abortion makes necessary all sorts of protections and laws to keep parents from stopping their minor child from getting an abortion. But we're supposed to believe that it NEVER goes the other way?

Synova, I didn't say it NEVER happens, did I? I said that the rarity of It happening doesn't justify subjecting all the other women who willingly choose to have an abortion to unessessary invasive procedures or being isolated with a doctor grilling her with a list of questions written by the government.

Didn't you people say you didn't want the government to get inbetween a doctor and his/her patient? How do you reconcile this?

Abortion is legal. That gives a woman the right to have one. ...It's not MY business or the business of the states to circumvent a federal law.

The problem is that the Supreme Court made up this right from their own emanations. Thus, there is no federal law a state can look to and see the extents or limits of that right. The Supreme Court has clearly allowed states to set certain limits and requirements on that right. Thus, there is no way to know if a new set of requirements are constitutional or not until a court rules on it.

the rarity of It [coerced abortion] happening doesn't justify subjecting all the other women who willingly choose to have an abortion to unessessary invasive procedures or being isolated with a doctor grilling her with a list of questions written by the government

How do you feel about the death penalty. Despite all the care that can be taken in the trial process some people are convicted and excecuted who are innocent.

Does the fact that there have been rare instances of innocent people sentenced to death justify the banning of the death penalty for ALL cases.

It seems to me that a pre screening process for abortions to ensure that the woman is not being coerced or forced to abort is the same safeguard as attempting to ensure that NO innocent people are subjected to the death penalty.

Since DEATH is involved in both cases, shouldn't we be as careful as possible?

Since abortion is a procedure that once done, cannot be undone, why would anyone object to the Doctor taking some extra time to be assured that the woman is positively aware of all consequences and is not being pressured to abort her child?

Because someone who IS positive and has no remorse might be irritated or offended?

The question I put to conservatives is since abortion is one of a million different medical procedures, why do they single this one out for so much regulation and hand wringing?

Because unlike almost all medical procedures which are meant to heal, abortion results in death.

Unlike other elective surgeries such as boob jobs, etc....abortion cannot be undone. You can't take back an abortion. Your baby is dead. really and surely dead. dead forever.

I also am pro choice. However, I am also pro being fully informed of all the nuances and consequences of your actions....medical and non medical.

Once informed or fully vetted to be sure that there is no undue force or coercion, women and men are free to make any choice that they want.

There is no War on Babies, unless it is the mother of said baby who waged it.

I wish no woman would ever feel the need to have an abortion. But until Roe v Wade is overturned, they will.

A baby that is not viable does not have Constitutional rights. Am I mistaken? Would an Amendment remedy this, thereby nullifying Roe v Wade?

I'm honestly asking.

But it would just send women who are desperate back to the back alleys. There will always be desperate pregnant irresponsible women.

Innocent babies certainly do not deserve to die, but who will care for these babies, who will pay for them, isn't welfare already burdensome to our economy? Will all these kids be adopted? What of the kids in foster care now, while abortion is legal?

Will our society be as concerned with these innocent children after they are born?

DBQ, that was poorly put, there may be less abortions, but there would be more unwanted children at risk for abuse and death at the hands of those who cared so little for them that hey would've aborted them.

Why are we arguing the morality of abortion? I agree it's immoral. It's a federal law, which gives the right to a woman to have one, now we have come full circle, all abortion discussions end this way.

from what I read, Walker did nothing to restrict abortion. As a pro-choicer myself, he was pretty neutral compared to where I live (VA). Having women alone to discuss abortion with their doctor is not a bad thing. It is not oppressive to women *unless* the doctor is being forced to persuade her otherwise. It could be an eeevil conservative plot, but it's quite lame.

And yes, dome women are forced to have it because no one will be there to take care of them (there is guilt on both sides for this).

I do not agree with the abstinence education, but I am not too sure about whether banning it was a good idea. How can you claim to be liberal yet ban even the mentioning of abstinence in sex education. It's true -- abstinence IS the only way to keep from pregnancy and STDs. I do not agree about abstinence-only education, but Walker did not sign that bill -- I don't think it could even happen in WI govt.

I used to think like a few folks here; that social conservatism will lead many to vote for O again. But now I'm thinking otherwise. Obama has done nothing to improve the economy of America. Women have jobs and have to pump gas, too. Gas is officially $4 gal in Va and it's not even May. No one believes the economy is getting better. With higher gas prices, food costs are going up. So the argument about O starting this "war on women" being about distracting people from his record is beginning to sound plausible.

Allie, I have a right (say) to get a drivers license. People used to be able to drive without a license. It was their right. The licensing requirement causes delay in licensing so that the state (and other drivers) can be assured that I know the rules of the road and have a minimal ability to drive a car. I have to get my eyes checked. Now that I am older, I will have to get my eyes checked more often.

Abortion is a right. Women have a special right to cause the death of a human fetus. No other human, not even the father of that fetus, can tell them not to exercise the right. But doesn't the society have an interest in assuring that the right is exercised with knowledge of the consequences and alternatives. Doesn't the society, and family members particularly, have a right in assuring that the woman is not being coerced or persuaded without the opportunity for due consideration of the act?

Placing procedural steps before you exercise a right is not negation of the right. This is one of the reasons it is unfortunate that abortion was legalized by a court order rather than legislation. The proponents are so paranoid that they see any restriction as a obliteration of the right.

Finally, you did not answer my primary question. To what extent, if any, do or should women have rights not extended to other humans, other than the existing right to have a human fetus killed upon their request?

Apart from abortion, just what are women's rights (as opposed to overall human rights.) It's pretty important to define what rights are being trampled before you posit a "war on women."

David, my main focus is abortion rights, which since women bare children is a woman's right issue.

As a nurse who has taken care of abused children in burn units, I don't want to see women forced to give birth to children they would've aborted only to maim or kill them later.

As a student nurse I had an 18 month old child die in my arms after he was set on fire by his mother inside his crib.

To think that these kids will all be adopted is not realistic, isn't happening now and minority children are in foster care and institutions. They are not being adopted in the numbers that some think they are.

"To think that these [abused] kids will all be adopted is not realistic,.."

To think that these abused kids would have been aborted is unrealistic.

Maybe... just *maybe*... a person could argue that it would be better never to have been born at all, that in fact a child is better off dead, than subjected to a horrific childhood... but I see no reason at all to think that the abusive mothers who decide to give birth, would ever make any other decision. Unless you can climb into those women's wombs and force the issue, that poor abused baby is not going to be aborted.

"Synova, I didn't say it NEVER happens, did I? I said that the rarity of It happening doesn't justify subjecting all the other women who willingly choose to have an abortion to unessessary invasive procedures or being isolated with a doctor grilling her with a list of questions written by the government."

I don't think it's as rare as all that. And I think that what we're talking about... being coerced into having an abortion and then living with that for the rest of your life, has a weight to it that might suggest that it actually *is* important to protect those women.

What is it worth to you, personally, to protect a woman you don't know? Would it be worth having to privately affirm that you'd made your own decision freely? If not, why not? Is being uncomfortable for a little bit really so weighty that it's worth subjecting some other woman to the trauma of knowing she never wanted to abort her baby, but wasn't strong enough to say no?

"Didn't you people say you didn't want the government to get inbetween a doctor and his/her patient? How do you reconcile this?"

I'm not certain that has been one of my personal causes... and really... it's not "getting between" a woman and her doctor to get everyone *else* out of the room.

"I do not agree with the abstinence education, but I am not too sure about whether banning it was a good idea. How can you claim to be liberal yet ban even the mentioning of abstinence in sex education."

AllieOop said...

"Sabinal, there is no reason that abstinence couldn't be a PART of a Sex Ed course, it was a mistake on the part of the last administration to ban the teaching of abstinence. That was unreasonable." 4/7/12 5:56 P.M.

Where does this stuff come from?? Received wisdom? Assuming? The prior law did not BAN teaching abstinence. In fact just the opposite is true:

"5. The benefits of and reasons for abstaining from sexual activity. Instruction under this subdivision SHALL stress the value of abstinence as the most reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections." (Emphasis added.) . 2009 Wisconsin Act 234.

The bill would "Require schools that teach sex education to promote marriage and tell students that abstinence is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The measure also allows public schools to teach abstinence-only courses, which had been barred since 2010 under a law Democrats approved when they controlled state government."

So it seems that marriage and abstinence must be taught about, and the ban on abstinence only teaching, imposed by Democrats in 2010, has now been repealed.

You do realize this gets into murky "quality of life" equations that can take disturbing turns very easily, right?

It reminds me of the big campaign to extol the virtue and rewards of adoption...especially of minorities You remember..Jesse, Al..the CBC. Wait...hmmm.

The separate exam and consultation reminds me of when I had eye surgery years ago. Made me watch a video and answer questions on a for, then sign for consent. Nothing like an eyeball filling the screen while its lens is being sliced. I confess I did think more seriously about that procedure. Damn intrusion.

Allie -- as an adoptive parent, who looked seriously at "foster-to-adopt" a huge part of the problem is that social service agencies have a mandate -- or believe they have one -- to re-unite kids with their biological parents.

Adoptions are depressingly rare in this demographic because the social workers would far rather keep the dossier open than to close it with a successful adoption of any sort. It's their pathway to mid-five-figure salaries for as long as they want them.

Adoption is not.

And you have no idea of how many adoptions are destroyed by social workers looking out after their own interests. Pregnant young woman? Great. She's a "case."

At the encouragement of said social worker some hopeful couple coughs up $3,000 (or more) in "birthmother support." When the child is born that same social worker then says "You know, honey, you can keep that child. We can get you onto welfare and the government will take care of you and your baby."

It's what they call a "disrupted adoption." The potential parents are left with aching hearts and a shrunken bank account. The social worker has yet another client to justify her $53,000 sinecure.

Adoption would be vastly more common and available if government social workers were actually focused on the best interests of children instead of clinging to their little power-tripping jobs.

A baby that is not viable does not have Constitutional rights. Am I mistaken? Would an Amendment remedy this, thereby nullifying Roe v Wade?

A constitutional amendment recognizing an unborn child as a person with constitutional rights might or might not overturn Roe v. Wade, depending on the makeup of the court at the time the case is heard. I'd be willing to bet four of the justices there now would still find a right to an abortion that trumps the unborn baby's right to life.

You would need to pass an amendment that specifically removed the right to an abortion, and have it very carefully worded, and not the slightest question about the process by which it passed in every state that approved it.

"So the ban was on abstinence ONLY teaching, NOT the teaching of abstinence as part of a Sex Ed course? I'm not an attorney, I am an interested woman and I would like to understand these laws correctly, try not to be so harsh." 4/7/12 8:24 P.M.

Answer: Yes.

The law is neither hard to find nor read, IMO.

As to harsh, I think you have me confused with about three dozen other people.

Ok, Allie, when you say women's rights, I will take it that you mean abortion rights. I hope you will at least realize that if we call this tragic dispute a war, it is a civil war, inasmuch as there are millions of women who do not favor abortion on demand.

Do women have any other rights, constitutional or natural, that are not the rights of all persons? I think not, and that is where we are finding dishonesty and confusion.

Is access to birth control a right? Well, yes it is, I think, given the right to control pregnancy. Does this mean that free or subsidized birth control are rights? Is it a right to have birth control covered by your health insurance? To have your birth control subsidized or distributed by religious organizations that oppose birth control on religious and moral grounds? This is where the confusion, demagoguery and dishonesty come in. It's sometimes hard to tell which is which, especially when our so called leaders deliberately confuse these issues for their own political ends. Especially when these leaders include the President of the United States.

Do we--no, I, since this is my opinion--tell you who to put your sperm into? Do I look over your shoulder to see if your using birth control, and say, "naughty, naughty" if, god forbid, your insurance pitched in on a vasectomy or "erection dysfunction" drugs? Do I hand you a kid and say, "here, you take it, have a nice life?" Do I tell you NOT TO HAVE SEX?

What a tragedy it would be if men had to stop having sex in order to lower the number of abortions!

But, since THAT is never going to happen, preach about something you do not have to experience and most likely will not have to take responsibility for. To someone else.

Them stop WHINING and go away until you take responsibility for your own fucking.

1) Another man weighing in on women's bodies. Lord, I get tired of this.

Translation: David, despite any valid logic to your arguments, you are disqualified from commenting by being merely the male half of the procreation process.

2) What a tragedy it would be if men had to stop having sex in order to lower the number of abortions!

Trans: Stop forcing sperm into unwilling uteri!

3) "stop WHINING and go away until you take responsibility for your own fucking."

Trans: Take responsibility for your effing in a 2 party dual gender construct unlike Fluke.

addendum: And don't you dare complain about the elevation of contraception above actual afflictions by demanding it be covered with no copay or deductible. To the back of the bus with those irrelevant chromosomes!

Men- Stop having sex unless you are fully prepared to raise and support any child you create, including marrying ( you know, that old-fashioned til-death-do-us-part type of marriage ) the mother of that child.

And pay for your own birth control, and/or that of your partner, unless you can find a third party that is willing to pay for it for you, uncoerced.

Abortion is a surgery. I can't have a random surgery without a one-on-one consultation with a doctor first. I can't have an MRI without a physician consult. I can't get a urine or blood test without a doctor's consult. In Alabama, I wouldn't be able to get Sudafed without a doctor's consult.

The objections to abortion are theological. I object to anti-abortion laws because I believe that there should be a separation of church and state. Certainly nobody should be forced to undergo unpleasant procedures like ultrasounds on the basis of some sect's sacred biology. What's next? Are you going to argue that nobody should be forced to go to be a Catholic but they have to attend a mass before they can opt out?